Contrary to the FUD, The Relational Database™ is far from dead…

I've gotten questions over the past month or two from folks (mostly DBAs and trainers) who have attended FUD dissemination events where various "experts" have declared The Relational Database™ to be dead. Ha! I've had a good laugh at most of the points that the so-called "experts" were spewing... They were all selling vaporware that was allegedly in development to produce a True Relational Database™ or a niche column-based cache widget or their own special brand of Snake Oil™.

Smarter people than I am are happily, eagerly investing MORE in database technology, rather than less, so I feel pretty comfortable continuing to base my career on the growth of The Relational Database™. In the spirit of w00t!, I'd like to welcome aboard the newest David in the database realm @ Microsoft:

DeWitt said Microsoft has generally given him carte blanche to focus his research and development wherever he wants. He's interested in a number of technologies and use cases, such as analytics to target online ads, query optimization at mega-scale, building database systems that can better exploit multi-core computers, and expanding the types of data databases can handle at scale. Microsoft Hires Database Pioneer, Opens Database Development Lab (InformationWeek.com)

I love The Relational Database™ (a.k.a. Microsoft™ SQL Server™), and I'm glad to see that we're adding more technical fellows in this realm. At the risk of seeming cliché, I'm happy to report that rumors of the demise of The Relational Database™ are greatly exaggerated. Heh.

Once SSDS and Google’s Big Table goes RTM and gains acceptance, how you think that is going to affect the DBA profession? To management implementing a new app, paying per cpu tick and avoiding the capex of a rack of server, licenses, network devices etc might sound pretty good.